spambayes rocks

[Brett g Porter]

"Donn Cave" <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:b1bnl2$181k$1 at nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Quoth "Brett g Porter" <BgPorter at NOartlogicSPAM.com>:
> ...
> | Of course, DNS-based blacklists shoot an elephant gun at the problem,
and
> | it's just too bad if you happen to innocently be using an ISP who gets
> | flagged as a source of spam. Every few months this happens to us, and
after
> | we see messages being bounced, we call the ISP, and they boot the
spammer,
> | and eventually the domain gets removed from the blacklist, but by that
time
> | we've lost a few days of business email.
> |
> | Blocking all mail (even legitimate) from South Korea  solves one
problem,
> | but creates another -- if my ISP happens to subscribe to this blacklist
> | service, there's absolutely no way for me to receive email from my
family
> | living there.
>
> Then you and your family urgently need to bring this problem to the
> Korean authorities.  Until they take responsibility for the problem,
> you will be hostages to one side or the other in an anarchic struggle
> between ISPs and spammers.

I don't buy that argument for a second. How is it different from (f'r
instance) my local telco deciding to reject all phone calls from the 818
area code because there are telemarketers operating from there? It's not the
responsibility of the legitimate customers to police the illegitimate
customers just because someone downstream has deputized themself as the spam
police.

Broad blacklists like this are nothing more than the geek equivalent of a
playground tantrum.